Scifi with aggressive sexuality

[RJDiogenes]

As I said, the religious roots run deep. Millennia of religious culture have taught people to fear sexuality, and people politicize what they fear. There is a base assumption in Judeo-Christian thought that sexuality and human beauty go by an entirely different set of rules that are inconsistent with the rest of human existence. Going to the ballet is refined-- going to a strip tease is perverted. A TV show about a singing contest is fine-- a TV show about a beauty contest is objectification. Stand-up comedy about raising children is funny-- stand-up comedy about sex is dirty. This is pure religion. This is the sickness in society.

Sexuality is a great thing. It's one of the things that makes life worth living. There's nothing to be afraid of.

Beauty is also a wonderful thing. It needs no excuse. There's nothing to be afraid of.

 

[Jan]

I'm surprised that the thread's gone this long without mentioning Sense8 at all. While some have accused it of furthering an agenda, I loved the way it used sex and sexuality to illustrate the characters and their relationships. In one semi-infamous scene, even a sex toy tells us a lot about the characters.
Anybody else seen it?
Jan

 

[Christopher]

I'm surprised that the thread's gone this long without mentioning Sense8 at all. While some have accused it of furthering an agenda, I loved the way it used sex and sexuality to illustrate the characters and their relationships. In one semi-infamous scene, even a sex toy tells us a lot about the characters.
Anybody else seen it?
Jan

I have it in my Netflix queue, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I'm curious about a lot of what I've heard, particularly concerning its ethnic, cultural, and sexual diversity, but also hesitant because I gather it gets kind of dark. I do watch a number of things that get really dark, but it's not something I like to experience too much of in quick succession.

Doesn't most fiction have an agenda of one sort or another? Why would there be anything wrong with that? Fiction is a way of expressing ideas and values. A work of fiction that reinforces the status quo is serving an agenda just as much as one that challenges it.

 

[SPCTRE]

I'm surprised that the thread's gone this long without mentioning Sense8 at all. While some have accused it of furthering an agenda, I loved the way it used sex and sexuality to illustrate the characters and their relationships. In one semi-infamous scene, even a sex toy tells us a lot about the characters.
Anybody else seen it?
Jan

Sense8 seemed to do a great job in that regard, I agree.

Also, fuck those people who think that "you have an agenda" is an "accusation".

 

[psCargile]

Are we talking about empowered to have prolific sex without threat of public scorn, or more than that?

 

[Jan]

I have it in my Netflix queue, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I'm curious about a lot of what I've heard, particularly concerning its ethnic, cultural, and sexual diversity, but also hesitant because I gather it gets kind of dark. I do watch a number of things that get really dark, but it's not something I like to experience too much of in quick succession.

If it were unrelentingly grim a la Game of Thrones, I'd've bailed pretty early. But it's not like that at all.

Not pretending that there aren't some dark threads - one of the characters is in Kenya and has to deal with a mother with AIDS and local gangs and a crime boss. Definitely some graphic violence. For me, though, it's leavened by a fair amount of humor whether it's a quip or a ridiculous situation.

 

[mos6507]

If we want to talk about presentations of sex in science fiction, then we can talk about stories where sex -- as in the actual act of sex or the exploration of relationships or gender dynamics -- is relevant to the story, rather than just a random bit of skin tossed into an otherwise non-sexual story. Like, say, the movie Her, where the lead character falls in love with an incorporeal artificial intelligence and there's an exploration of how they manage to include sex in their relationship. Or Ex Machina, where the inventor of a series of female androids creates them to serve his sexual needs but tries to justify their sexual nature in pragmatic and philosophical terms. There's a worthwhile discussion to be had over whether Alicia Vikander's nude scene there was gratuitous or legitimate, because it fits into the movie's larger themes of power, sexuality, and exploitation. Even something like Under the Skin, where an alien uses casual sex to lure in victims. There's no shortage of SF movies out there that actually have something to do with sex as a significant part of the story, the characterizations, and the themes.

I agree with the examples you cited. The sex aspects in Her and Ex Machina didn't seem to be presented to get a rise out of the audience. However, in my opinion a lot of the sex components in "adult" cable series skirt this plausible-deniable line. They've kind of turned that into an art-form where they wave their hands and say "but it's 'serious'" and yet everyone knows that keeping a certain quotient of full-frontal and sex scenes streaming through the TV is what maintains a big part of their audience. It's like the difference between Hustler and Maxim (or the new nudity-free Playboy). You can't completely eliminate the need to conduct commerce.

And I think this differentiation between 14-year old perceptions and adult perceptions are not as stark as you think it is. If the draw of watching something is in any way wrapped up in the hopes of catching this or that beautiful person in some state of undress doing this or that act, whether or not it's framed in some awesome story with all this meaning or not, it's the same thing as the 14-year old. The redeeming features are merely added value but it doesn't change the fact that you're watching something to get a rise out of yourself. Visit the fan pages for some of these cable shows and you'll see quite a bit of chatter about how this or that person is gorgeous and this or that scene was hot. Sometimes I think people really pat themselves on the back too much for being so evolved that they're above it all.

Film/TV is partly a visceral, sensory experience, which is very basic and primal. It's not just about contemplating ideas/philosophies.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with the examples you cited. The sex aspects in Her and Ex Machina didn't seem to be presented to get a rise out of the audience. However, in my opinion a lot of the sex components in "adult" cable series skirt this plausible-deniable line. They've kind of turned that into an art-form where they wave their hands and say "but it's 'serious'" and yet everyone knows that keeping a certain quotient of full-frontal and sex scenes streaming through the TV is what maintains a big part of their audience.

Well, sure. It's a given that sex sells. That's obviously always going to be a factor. But you can do it in a gratuitous and objectifying way -- by tossing in random underwear shots or voyeuristic moments in a story that otherwise has nothing to do with anything sexual -- or you can do it in a way that's meaningful to the story, by including characters' sex lives and relationships as part of the narrative. It's the same as with any other element in fiction -- you can tack it on gratuitously or incorporate it so that it serves a purpose. Like when I put continuity references in my Star Trek fiction. I try to avoid tossing in Easter eggs or episode references just to wink at the audience and say "Hey, look how much I know about Star Trek," because I think that's gratuitous. But I will incorporate all sorts of obscure continuity references if I can get something useful and meaningful to the story out of it.

You could draw the same distinction with any other element. Is a fight scene just there to meet an arbitrary quota for violence, or does it advance the story because there's emotional weight in what the characters are fighting for? Is a pop song in the soundtrack just gratuitously and distractingly tacked onto a scene to sell soundtrack albums, or is it there because it means something to the characters and has lyrics that resonate with the ideas and emotions of the scene?

It's like the difference between Hustler and Maxim (or the new nudity-free Playboy). You can't completely eliminate the need to conduct commerce.

That's merely a difference of explicitness, and it's not the same kind of distinction I'm talking about. This was discussed in one of the articles I linked to the other day, the one on ComicsAlliance, I think it was. There's nothing wrong with deliberately creating a work of erotica. If that's the clear intent from the start, then people know going in what they're getting. It makes perfect sense to use sexual imagery in a work that is intentionally and primarily about creating sexual arousal. But if you're telling a story that isn't sexually themed, e.g. an action movie, and you randomly toss in a shot that sexually objectifies a female character in a way that contributes nothing to the narrative, then that's more gratuitous. It's more like the difference between Hustler and, say, the bikini models in an automotive magazine. Using sexy women to sell a magazine about sex makes perfect sense, but using them to sell a magazine about cars is... well, that's more the sort of thing you seem to be talking about.

And I think this differentiation between 14-year old perceptions and adult perceptions are not as stark as you think it is.

You don't understand how I think. I don't assume any such distinction is binary and absolute, because I know the world is more nuanced than that. But it's a useful simplification when attempting to distinguish between two approaches.

If the draw of watching something is in any way wrapped up in the hopes of catching this or that beautiful person in some state of undress doing this or that act, whether or not it's framed in some awesome story with all this meaning or not, it's the same thing as the 14-year old. The redeeming features are merely added value but it doesn't change the fact that you're watching something to get a rise out of yourself.

Again, yes, of course, the arousal is part of both, and there's no reason it shouldn't be. Sexual desire is not evil or wrong. But it can be handled in an immature way -- which is selfish and only about one's own gratification with no regard for the feelings or viewpoint of the other party -- or it can be handled in an adult way -- which is about engaging with the other party as a person and being attuned to their desires and needs as well as one's own. That's the distinction I'm drawing between a movie that just strips down its female characters for men to ogle and a movie that allows its female characters to have sexual agency and choose to be sexual for their own satisfaction as well as that of their partners. In the former, only one person is gratified at the other's expense. In the latter, both participants (as well as the audience) get gratification. And that's why it's a more mature and healthy approach -- because it's not selfish, because it entails the empathy and cooperation that are part of adult relationships.

And because it's more involved, of course. Just looking at someone else's body is the most elementary step of a sexual interaction. That's where people start out when they first begin to get interested in sexuality, and for our metaphorical 14-year-old boy, just getting to see a bit of skin is a Big Deal. But for an adult, presumably, they've moved beyond that superficial stage to having actual relationships and actual sex. That's why I'm using the teen/adult distinction as an analogy for the difference between movies that just tack a bit of skin onto a non-sexual story and movies that actually incorporate sexuality and relationships into the story.

So I have never, at any point, tried to cast this in terms of using sex vs. not using sex. Rather, I'm talking about the distinction between using sexuality well and using it poorly.

 

[Sci]

I think the essence of what Christopher is talking about when he talks about empowerment vs. objectification is this:

Does the work of art present the character as a "being for others," or does the work of art present the character as a "being for herself?" I.E., does the character's identity center around somehow serving another character's needs/wants, or does the character's identity center around serving her own needs/wants?

When we see T'Pol writhing on the floor because she is unbearably horny because alien germs put her into Vulcan heat (as in ENT's "Bounty") after the narrator on the "Next Week..." promo proclaims: "It's FINALLY happened! T'Pol's in HEAT!", that's presenting a character in other-centric terms; T'Pol is not presented as a character with whom we are invited to empathize, but instead as an object we are meant to lust after. There's no real consideration given to how T'Pol feels about the situation -- about what the feeling of losing control means to someone whose identity is built on self-control, or about what the psychological consequences are. The character is depicted as existing to serve the desires of others -- in this case, the (presumed) desire of the (presumed female-attracted) audience to see her lose her sexual agency.

When, on the other hand, we see, say, Jessica Jones having sex with Luke Cage in Jessica Jones, we are being presented with a character who has sexual agency and who is trying to connect with another person with whom she has something fundamental and secret in common (their powers). She may occasionally be shown in her underwear, but this isn't presented solely for male titillation -- we are getting an extensive view of Jessica's life and of the traumatic circumstances that inform it, and so we occasionally see her in states of undress (or even while she is using the toilet). The character is not being placed into situations purely for the sexual pleasure of the audience; the character acts for herself, not for the audience.

(Credit where credit is due: The concept of subconsciously perceiving someone else as a "being for others" is one I got from Paulo Freire's excellent but quite dense Pedagogy of the Oppressed. I highly recommend it.)

 

[RJDiogenes]

Like I said, sexuality is highly politicized. How often do people have panic attacks over a "gratuitous" comedy scene in a movie or TV show? "Goddamnit, the story could have been told without that joke! That was just inserted to make the audience chuckle!"

I'm surprised that the thread's gone this long without mentioning Sense8 at all. While some have accused it of furthering an agenda, I loved the way it used sex and sexuality to illustrate the characters and their relationships. In one semi-infamous scene, even a sex toy tells us a lot about the characters.
Anybody else seen it?
Jan

I never heard of it before. I'll have to do some research.

 

[Reverend]

Sense8 seemed to do a great job in that regard, I agree.

Also, fuck those people who think that "you have an agenda" is an "accusation".

So far as I can see, Sense8's agenda seems to be to show the benefits of increased understanding, co-operation, sharing and empathy.

The underhanded monsters!

 

[DigificWriter]

As I read through the thread - particularly Christopher's posts - there were two characters who immediately came to mind: Kara Thrace and Inara Serra.

Both characters illustrate the kind of thing that Christopher is talking about (using sexuality well vs using sexuality poorly) perfectly.

 

[Christopher]

As I read through the thread - particularly Christopher's posts - there were two characters who immediately came to mind: Kara Thrace and Inara Serra.

Both characters illustrate the kind of thing that Christopher is talking about (using sexuality well vs using sexuality poorly) perfectly.

How do you mean? Neither of those characters fits the "using sexuality poorly" category as I see it. Inara was a character whose career was based in sexuality, so it made perfect sense for her to be sexual, more so than it would've been if someone like, say, Zoe had been dressed up in skimpy outfits and posing provocatively all the time. When I talk about using sexuality poorly, I'm talking about sexualizing a female character unnecessarily or inappropriately in order to pander to male gaze (e.g. putting a female video-game warrior in skimpy, bikini-like "armor" during a combat scene), rather than letting her be sexual for her own reasons and her own gratification (e.g. putting a female character in a bikini if she's on the beach and wants to be noticed, or putting her in lingerie during a love scene with her boyfriend or girlfriend). Really, is anyone reading the articles I've been linking to? They do a lot to explain the distinctions in context and power dynamics that I'm discussing here. I don't recall either Kara or Inara ever being rendered powerless in their sexual interactions or presentation. Both embraced their sexuality by choice and maintained control over it. I think there was one scene where a man tried to assert inappropriate sexual domination over Inara and she demonstrated how the rules of her institution would have led him to be punished and ostracized for it. The power dynamic was very clearly in her favor.

Both Galactica/Caprica and Firefly did a good job depicting exotic cultures that had different sexual mores than our own, cultures that respected sexuality rather than demonizing it. Inara worked in a sexual profession; Starbuck was a member of the military who engaged in sex for recreation. But neither one was stigmatized or slut-shamed for it (except by Mal, but his perspective was not shared by the mainstream of Inara's culture). Zoe and Kaylee were also freely sexual, like Kara, and were not judged negatively for it. Both portrayals were free of the misogynistic double standard that's pervasive in our society, on the one hand constantly objectifying women's bodies yet on the other hand reflexively shaming them for being sexually active. Both portrayed sexuality as something that women had a right to pursue for their own reasons, whether personal or professional, without being diminished by so doing.

Killjoys is another future in much the same vein. Sex work is treated matter-of-factly, and female characters have as much sexual agency and independence as male characters. Defiance started out looking the same way, but unfortunately fell back on the standard gendered cliches reducing the female characters to sexual victims of one sort or another.

 

[DigificWriter]

They came to my mind as examples of se

How do you mean? Neither of those characters fits the "using sexuality poorly" category

You're right; they came to my mind as examples of sex and sexuality being used well.

On the "sexuality being used poorly" front when it comes to BSG, I don't know if Razor's revelations about the undercurrent running beneath what happened to Gina Inviere/Pegasus Six as revealed in Pegasus count, but that entire plot is definitely one of the more disturbing - and yet all too real - elements of the series' approach to sex and sexuality.

 

[Christopher]

You're right; they came to my mind as examples of sex and sexuality being used well.

Ah, okay. The way you phrased it kind of sounded like you were listing Kara Thrace as "well" and Inara as "poorly." Sorry for the confusion.

On the "sexuality being used poorly" front when it comes to BSG, I don't know if Razor's revelations about the undercurrent running beneath what happened to Gina Inviere/Pegasus Six as revealed in Pegasus count, but that entire plot is definitely one of the more disturbing - and yet all too real - elements of the series' approach to sex and sexuality.

Rape is a subject matter that can have merit if it's handled with care, but it's far too often used gratuitously or as a default motivation for female characters (Defiance was guilty of the latter). It's a very tricky matter because, awfully, it's something that a large percentage of female viewers/readers (and a certain percentage of male ones) have personally had inflicted on them, and thus it can trigger traumatic flashbacks or PTSD. So it's not something that should be used as a plot device without a very good reason, and without prior warning for the audience. (The recent Roots remake on the History channel included the historical reality of slave rape as a necessary part of portraying the atrocities of slavery, but prefaced it with a viewer-discretion warning that the story would involve sexual assault.) I don't really recall how it was handled in "Pegasus," but I think I did feel it was a little gratuitous or excessive.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't really recall how it was handled in "Pegasus," but I think I did feel it was a little gratuitous or excessive.

It's been awhile since this aired, but just in case I'll put it in spoilercode:

Spoiler: Pegasus

When Gina first appeared on nuBSG, she was presented as a sex slave who was subjected to repeated, brutal rapes and assaults by Pegasus crew. It wasn't until the prequel "Razor" that we found out WHY, though: Gina had been the lover of Admiral Cain, who no doubt wanted revenge after finding out Gina was a Cylon.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Like I said, sexuality is highly politicized. How often do people have panic attacks over a "gratuitous" comedy scene in a movie or TV show? "Goddamnit, the story could have been told without that joke! That was just inserted to make the audience chuckle!"

I'd disagree here. People often complain about a joke being out of place or the tone veering in to comedy at the wrong time. Films or shows not quite knowing where they're aiming with this or that piece of humour. Badly timed, executed action scenes. CG that just completely took them out of it.

 

[Christopher]

It's been awhile since this aired, but just in case I'll put it in spoilercode:

Spoiler: Pegasus

When Gina first appeared on nuBSG, she was presented as a sex slave who was subjected to repeated, brutal rapes and assaults by Pegasus crew. It wasn't until the prequel "Razor" that we found out WHY, though: Gina had been the lover of Admiral Cain, who no doubt wanted revenge after finding out Gina was a Cylon.

Hmm. I suppose it can be legitimate to show how rape is frequently used as a form of torture, prisoner abuse, or dehumanization of wartime enemies (as with the rapes portrayed in Roots). That can serve a purpose as long as the actual depiction isn't overly dwelled on or sexualized. I suppose my objection was more about the general practice of showing the Pegasus crew as such exaggeratedly evil and sadistic people, which seemed like overkill.

And once again, this is a case of Razor's efforts to "explain" the Pegasus crew's behavior making it far, far worse. Showing a prisoner being raped because rape is a common form of prisoner abuse and torture can be a valid statement. Showing her being raped because of the vindictiveness of her lesbian ex-lover? That's just crass, homophobic, and melodramatic.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I don't know if I'd go as far as to call it homophobic, but it is disturbing as heck.

 

[Christopher]

^ I don't know if I'd go as far as to call it homophobic, but it is disturbing as heck.

Perhaps not deliberately, but it resonates with the "evil lesbian" stereotype common in older fiction. And it takes what could've been social commentary about how we abuse enemies in wartime (mass rape has been a weapon of war throughout history) and reduces it to a petty soap-opera feud.

Intendant Kira in DS9's Mirror Universe episodes had the same issue with stereotyping -- the good Kira was conventionally, respectably heterosexual while her evil twin was sexually aggressive, hedonistic, and bisexual. Which also played into the more general stereotype of women who enjoy their sexuality being bad or dangerous. At first, her fascination with her other self was portrayed more as narcissism than bisexuality, but later Mirror episodes amplified the Intendant's sluttiness and made a running gag of Mirror characters being at least implicitly gay or bi while their counterparts were still played as strictly hetero. (Dax being the exception. I think Jadzia is the only canonically bisexual series lead in any Trek series to date, though that may change next year...)